1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 68 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69CHAIRMAN COURTER: Well, Let
me interrupt you, basicaLly. And we want to
hear a little bit of the discussion, but
basically what we're saying is that, inasmch
as the Commission voted for consideration of
the possibility of the closure of Portsmouth,
if that eventuality did occur, in essence, we
have to have the option of closing this
facility on it.
MR. YELLIN: It is a tenant,
and we have not studied in detail what would
be the options of keeping that in place in a
contonement or a separate area. My
understanding is that the NESEC Portsamuth is
Located within the St. Jul Lian's Creek Annex
to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. And our
judgement right now is that it would probably
have to be Looked at as a potential
relocation.
MR. EPSTEIN: That's correct,
everything that has been said, including your
assumption. I think there are a couple of
other factors that just ought to be brought
forth.
With respect to Charleston,
when it was originally Looked at last year,
and this time as a closure potential, it was
assumed that Charleston was a follower, that
the NESECs, in general, were followers. And
in reality, the NESECs are functionalLy
oriented, not specifically geographically
Located. So their location relative to the
fleet really isn't that important.
Furthermore, NESEC Charleston
should be given the opportunity to move from
some Lease space that it occupies into
government-owned space, either at the Naval
station or at Palm Flans. OriginatLy, it was
viewed that NESEA St. Inigoes could close. In
reality, it appears that a minima of about
104 technical people and their slwort
personnel must remain at St. inigoes.
And some of the issues
involving why they have to stay are twofold.
First of all, there are some extreme problems
with electromagnetic interference, whereby
when you start running radars, you interfere
with hospital emergency equipment, bank teller
machines, and things tike that. And they do
very unpredictable things, and it has caused a
lot of problem in the past in Portsmouth and
might elsewhere.
Second major reason is that
because of its remoteness, St. Inigoes is in a
position to experiment with a lot of programs
at very low power that, without getting a
clearance to use certain frequencies in a
place Like Portsmouth, that probably would not
be possible. And so St. Inigoes holds special
value of its own.
The activity that's in NESSEC
Washington is not large enough to be a
destination site. It's probably going to be
involved in a national capital region
relocation program. And, in reality, the
people that are there wil l probably go either
to Fort Meade or to St. Inigoes, though there
is a possibility of sending them elsewhere.
CCPI [SSIONER MCPHERSONI: SoiI
you're saying the Navy wants to keep one
Location, Portsmouth, but that one Location
cannot do the job because of electromagnetic
interference probLems?
MR. EPSTEIN: Because of that
and also, in this case, because it's also a
tenant at the shipyard.
MR. YELLIN: We're talking
about all potential things. The Navy has a
proposal to move these people --
GEN JOHNSON: But it's not a
potential that Portsmouth cannot do the full
mission?
MR. EPSTEIN: That's correct.
MR. YELLIN: The Navy has can
back and stated to us, even though they have
St. Inigoes shown as a closure, they do have a
significant staff and some of their facilities
retained there at St. Inigoes.
GEN JOHNSON: So they admit
their original proposal cannot work?
MR. EPSTEIN: I haven't seen
that in writing, specifically, but if you Look
at the Dm report, it says closuree, bit it
also says in the next sentence that it's going
to Leave certain programs like the AEGIS
program on site at St. Inigoes.
MR. YELLING: It's not
necessarily a change; it's just the Labelling
might have been wrong.
COMMISSIONER STUART: How do
we get a Look at an alternative to what DOD
did recotend on St. Inigoes?
MR. YELLIN: Well, we have
been talking to the Navy about various
scenarios of alternatives for this, and one of
the things that we want to do today is to
bring up the issue of Portsmouth as a player
in some of those alternatives, but only if
it's on the list as a potential
closure/real igrment.
COIVIKSSIONER STUART: But
Portsmouth, you say, is a nonstarter to begin
with.
MR. YELLIN: The '91
Commission had sufficient concerns with
Portsmouth as the receiver to take that off
the plate and reject that proposal from the
Navy. The Navy has returned now with the same
proposal to do this, and we're restudying
those same issues again to see if they have
been reconsidered or that there might have
been things that were overlooked in '91.
GEN JOHNSON: But you said a
moment ago, if we keep Norfolk open, then your
proposal would be not to do this; is that
correct? In other words, not to put
Portsmouth on the list?
MR. YELL[N: No. This is not
being driven by t:he potential closure of the
shipyard, although that is a player in this.
if the shipyard is closed, then NESEC
Portsmouth as a tenant would have to be
considered as a potential relocation. But
this is being driven to look at alternatives
to redo this real ignment of East Coast and
service engineering demands in a different
way.
COMMlISSIONER MCPHERSON: Mr.ro
r
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/68/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.